Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 1011	control, N = 511	treatment, N = 501	p-value2
age	100	49.90 ± 13.25 (25 - 74)	50.31 ± 13.31 (25 - 74)	49.50 ± 13.32 (28 - 73)	0.761
Unknown		1	1	0
gender	101				0.692
f		75 (74%)	37 (73%)	38 (76%)
m		26 (26%)	14 (27%)	12 (24%)
occupation	101				0.735
day_training		2 (2.0%)	2 (3.9%)	0 (0%)
full_time		13 (13%)	6 (12%)	7 (14%)
homemaker		8 (7.9%)	5 (9.8%)	3 (6.0%)
other		2 (2.0%)	0 (0%)	2 (4.0%)
part_time		17 (17%)	8 (16%)	9 (18%)
retired		25 (25%)	12 (24%)	13 (26%)
self_employ		4 (4.0%)	2 (3.9%)	2 (4.0%)
student		2 (2.0%)	0 (0%)	2 (4.0%)
t_and_e		2 (2.0%)	1 (2.0%)	1 (2.0%)
unemploy		26 (26%)	15 (29%)	11 (22%)
marital	101				0.699
cohabitation		1 (1.0%)	0 (0%)	1 (2.0%)
divore		10 (9.9%)	7 (14%)	3 (6.0%)
in_relationship		1 (1.0%)	1 (2.0%)	0 (0%)
married		25 (25%)	13 (25%)	12 (24%)
none		56 (55%)	26 (51%)	30 (60%)
seperation		3 (3.0%)	2 (3.9%)	1 (2.0%)
widow		5 (5.0%)	2 (3.9%)	3 (6.0%)
edu	101				0.555
bachelor		26 (26%)	9 (18%)	17 (34%)
diploma		20 (20%)	13 (25%)	7 (14%)
hd_ad		3 (3.0%)	2 (3.9%)	1 (2.0%)
postgraduate		8 (7.9%)	4 (7.8%)	4 (8.0%)
primary		5 (5.0%)	2 (3.9%)	3 (6.0%)
secondary_1_3		13 (13%)	8 (16%)	5 (10%)
secondary_4_5		23 (23%)	12 (24%)	11 (22%)
secondary_6_7		3 (3.0%)	1 (2.0%)	2 (4.0%)
fam_income	101				0.874
10001_12000		4 (4.0%)	1 (2.0%)	3 (6.0%)
12001_14000		5 (5.0%)	2 (3.9%)	3 (6.0%)
14001_16000		6 (5.9%)	2 (3.9%)	4 (8.0%)
16001_18000		3 (3.0%)	1 (2.0%)	2 (4.0%)
18001_20000		4 (4.0%)	3 (5.9%)	1 (2.0%)
20001_above		19 (19%)	9 (18%)	10 (20%)
2001_4000		15 (15%)	10 (20%)	5 (10%)
4001_6000		11 (11%)	5 (9.8%)	6 (12%)
6001_8000		10 (9.9%)	6 (12%)	4 (8.0%)
8001_10000		7 (6.9%)	3 (5.9%)	4 (8.0%)
below_2000		17 (17%)	9 (18%)	8 (16%)
medication	101	89 (88%)	46 (90%)	43 (86%)	0.515
onset_duration	99	14.70 ± 10.49 (0 - 56)	15.85 ± 11.49 (1 - 56)	13.47 ± 9.27 (0 - 35)	0.260
Unknown		2	0	2
onset_age	98	35.44 ± 14.50 (10 - 65)	34.45 ± 13.56 (10 - 61)	36.48 ± 15.50 (15 - 65)	0.492
Unknown		3	1	2
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 1011	control, N = 511	treatment, N = 501	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	101	3.09 ± 1.19 (1 - 5)	3.16 ± 1.24 (1 - 5)	3.02 ± 1.15 (1 - 5)	0.567
recovery_stage_b	101	17.94 ± 2.69 (9 - 24)	17.76 ± 2.74 (9 - 23)	18.12 ± 2.65 (13 - 24)	0.510
ras_confidence	101	30.13 ± 5.01 (18 - 45)	29.73 ± 4.33 (19 - 40)	30.54 ± 5.64 (18 - 45)	0.417
ras_willingness	101	12.03 ± 2.01 (7 - 15)	11.88 ± 1.96 (8 - 15)	12.18 ± 2.07 (7 - 15)	0.459
ras_goal	101	17.46 ± 3.05 (11 - 25)	17.33 ± 2.86 (12 - 24)	17.58 ± 3.26 (11 - 25)	0.687
ras_reliance	101	13.24 ± 2.89 (7 - 20)	13.12 ± 2.65 (8 - 18)	13.36 ± 3.13 (7 - 20)	0.675
ras_domination	101	9.96 ± 2.34 (3 - 15)	10.27 ± 2.24 (3 - 15)	9.64 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)	0.175
symptom	101	30.15 ± 9.59 (14 - 56)	31.22 ± 9.76 (14 - 55)	29.06 ± 9.38 (15 - 56)	0.261
slof_work	101	22.61 ± 4.72 (10 - 30)	22.37 ± 4.21 (13 - 30)	22.86 ± 5.22 (10 - 30)	0.606
slof_relationship	101	25.58 ± 5.86 (11 - 35)	24.92 ± 5.77 (13 - 35)	26.26 ± 5.94 (11 - 35)	0.253
satisfaction	101	20.56 ± 6.87 (5 - 35)	19.18 ± 6.43 (5 - 31)	21.98 ± 7.08 (5 - 35)	0.040
mhc_emotional	101	11.16 ± 3.83 (3 - 18)	10.76 ± 3.66 (3 - 17)	11.56 ± 4.00 (4 - 18)	0.300
mhc_social	101	15.03 ± 5.49 (5 - 30)	15.06 ± 5.42 (7 - 30)	15.00 ± 5.62 (5 - 27)	0.957
mhc_psychological	101	21.97 ± 6.28 (6 - 36)	21.57 ± 5.91 (9 - 36)	22.38 ± 6.67 (6 - 36)	0.519
resilisnce	101	16.79 ± 4.56 (6 - 30)	16.29 ± 4.16 (6 - 24)	17.30 ± 4.93 (7 - 30)	0.270
social_provision	101	13.68 ± 2.83 (5 - 20)	13.16 ± 2.38 (8 - 20)	14.22 ± 3.16 (5 - 20)	0.059
els_value_living	101	17.15 ± 3.02 (5 - 25)	16.67 ± 2.46 (12 - 22)	17.64 ± 3.46 (5 - 25)	0.106
els_life_fulfill	101	12.74 ± 3.37 (4 - 20)	11.96 ± 3.19 (5 - 19)	13.54 ± 3.39 (4 - 20)	0.018
els	101	29.89 ± 5.85 (9 - 45)	28.63 ± 4.92 (18 - 38)	31.18 ± 6.46 (9 - 45)	0.028
social_connect	101	26.53 ± 9.16 (8 - 48)	27.69 ± 8.19 (8 - 45)	25.36 ± 10.00 (8 - 48)	0.204
shs_agency	101	14.50 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)	13.78 ± 4.58 (3 - 21)	15.24 ± 5.31 (3 - 24)	0.143
shs_pathway	101	16.51 ± 3.94 (4 - 24)	16.02 ± 3.79 (8 - 24)	17.02 ± 4.06 (4 - 24)	0.203
shs	101	31.02 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)	29.80 ± 8.02 (13 - 45)	32.26 ± 8.89 (7 - 48)	0.148
esteem	101	12.66 ± 1.76 (10 - 20)	12.88 ± 1.66 (10 - 18)	12.44 ± 1.84 (10 - 20)	0.207
mlq_search	101	14.89 ± 3.52 (3 - 21)	14.61 ± 3.25 (6 - 21)	15.18 ± 3.78 (3 - 21)	0.416
mlq_presence	101	13.38 ± 4.30 (3 - 21)	13.20 ± 3.70 (5 - 21)	13.56 ± 4.86 (3 - 21)	0.673
mlq	101	28.27 ± 6.99 (6 - 42)	27.80 ± 6.10 (12 - 40)	28.74 ± 7.82 (6 - 42)	0.503
empower	101	19.39 ± 4.26 (6 - 30)	18.84 ± 3.90 (11 - 30)	19.94 ± 4.57 (6 - 30)	0.197
ismi_resistance	101	14.64 ± 2.59 (5 - 20)	14.31 ± 2.13 (10 - 19)	14.98 ± 2.97 (5 - 20)	0.198
ismi_discrimation	101	11.44 ± 3.14 (5 - 20)	12.14 ± 2.89 (5 - 19)	10.72 ± 3.26 (5 - 20)	0.023
sss_affective	101	10.01 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)	10.41 ± 3.45 (3 - 18)	9.60 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)	0.267
sss_behavior	101	9.65 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)	10.22 ± 3.88 (3 - 18)	9.08 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)	0.138
sss_cognitive	101	8.05 ± 3.69 (3 - 18)	8.57 ± 3.83 (3 - 18)	7.52 ± 3.50 (3 - 18)	0.154
sss	101	27.71 ± 10.24 (9 - 54)	29.20 ± 10.11 (9 - 54)	26.20 ± 10.25 (9 - 54)	0.142
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).

## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.16	0.163	2.84, 3.48
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.137	0.231	-0.590, 0.317	0.555
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.137	0.244	-0.342, 0.615	0.577
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.421	0.351	-0.267, 1.11	0.234
	Pseudo R square	0.026
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	17.8	0.396	17.0, 18.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.355	0.563	-0.747, 1.46	0.529
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.221	0.553	-1.31, 0.864	0.691
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.588	0.796	-0.972, 2.15	0.463
	Pseudo R square	0.012
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.7	0.718	28.3, 31.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.815	1.020	-1.18, 2.81	0.426
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.805	0.766	-0.696, 2.31	0.298
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.02	1.103	-1.15, 3.18	0.361
	Pseudo R square	0.028
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	11.9	0.284	11.3, 12.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.298	0.403	-0.492, 1.09	0.462
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.642	0.302	-1.23, -0.050	0.038
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.755	0.435	-0.098, 1.61	0.088
	Pseudo R square	0.030
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.3	0.444	16.5, 18.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.247	0.632	-0.991, 1.48	0.697
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.435	0.506	-1.43, 0.556	0.393
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.54	0.728	0.115, 2.97	0.038
	Pseudo R square	0.029
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.1	0.404	12.3, 13.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.242	0.574	-0.883, 1.37	0.674
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.358	0.411	-0.449, 1.16	0.388
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.01	0.593	-0.152, 2.17	0.094
	Pseudo R square	0.035
ras_domination	(Intercept)	10.3	0.321	9.65, 10.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.635	0.456	-1.53, 0.260	0.167
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.288	0.434	-1.14, 0.563	0.510
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.42	0.625	0.197, 2.65	0.026
	Pseudo R square	0.029
symptom	(Intercept)	31.2	1.336	28.6, 33.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-2.16	1.899	-5.88, 1.57	0.259
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.363	1.104	-2.53, 1.80	0.744
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.874	1.592	-3.99, 2.25	0.585
	Pseudo R square	0.018
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.4	0.660	21.1, 23.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.487	0.939	-1.35, 2.33	0.605
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.175	0.664	-1.48, 1.13	0.793
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.088	0.957	-1.79, 1.96	0.927
	Pseudo R square	0.003
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	24.9	0.813	23.3, 26.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.34	1.155	-0.925, 3.60	0.249
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.14	0.771	-2.66, 0.369	0.144
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.53	1.111	-0.653, 3.70	0.175
	Pseudo R square	0.030
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.2	0.965	17.3, 21.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.80	1.372	0.114, 5.49	0.043
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.871	1.078	-1.24, 2.98	0.422
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.080	1.553	-3.12, 2.96	0.959
	Pseudo R square	0.042
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.8	0.532	9.72, 11.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.795	0.756	-0.687, 2.28	0.295
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.361	0.489	-0.598, 1.32	0.464
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.452	0.705	-1.83, 0.930	0.524
	Pseudo R square	0.008
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.1	0.802	13.5, 16.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.059	1.140	-2.29, 2.17	0.959
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.622	0.865	-1.07, 2.32	0.475
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.476	1.246	-2.92, 1.97	0.704
	Pseudo R square	0.002
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.6	0.921	19.8, 23.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.811	1.309	-1.75, 3.38	0.537
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.774	0.960	-1.11, 2.66	0.424
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.505	1.383	-3.22, 2.21	0.716
	Pseudo R square	0.004
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.3	0.626	15.1, 17.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.01	0.890	-0.739, 2.75	0.261
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.128	0.717	-1.28, 1.53	0.859
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.32	1.033	-0.700, 3.35	0.205
	Pseudo R square	0.037
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.2	0.400	12.4, 13.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.06	0.568	-0.051, 2.18	0.064
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.535	0.475	-1.47, 0.397	0.265
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.620	0.685	-0.721, 1.96	0.368
	Pseudo R square	0.052
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.7	0.431	15.8, 17.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.973	0.613	-0.228, 2.18	0.115
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.240	0.488	-0.716, 1.20	0.624
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.180	0.703	-1.20, 1.56	0.798
	Pseudo R square	0.030
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	12.0	0.454	11.1, 12.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.58	0.645	0.315, 2.84	0.016
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.630	0.413	-0.180, 1.44	0.133
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.311	0.595	-1.48, 0.856	0.603
	Pseudo R square	0.054
els	(Intercept)	28.6	0.813	27.0, 30.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.55	1.155	0.288, 4.82	0.029
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.851	0.756	-0.630, 2.33	0.265
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.088	1.089	-2.22, 2.05	0.936
	Pseudo R square	0.049
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.7	1.304	25.1, 30.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-2.33	1.853	-5.96, 1.31	0.212
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.10	1.173	-1.20, 3.40	0.353
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.94	1.691	-6.26, 0.371	0.087
	Pseudo R square	0.037
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.8	0.695	12.4, 15.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.46	0.988	-0.481, 3.39	0.144
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.126	0.689	-1.22, 1.48	0.856
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.643	0.992	-1.30, 2.59	0.520
	Pseudo R square	0.030
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	16.0	0.545	15.0, 17.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.00	0.775	-0.518, 2.52	0.199
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.126	0.533	-0.918, 1.17	0.814
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.157	0.767	-1.66, 1.35	0.838
	Pseudo R square	0.015
shs	(Intercept)	29.8	1.178	27.5, 32.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.46	1.674	-0.826, 5.74	0.145
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.253	1.118	-1.94, 2.44	0.822
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.492	1.611	-2.67, 3.65	0.761
	Pseudo R square	0.025
esteem	(Intercept)	12.9	0.225	12.4, 13.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.442	0.320	-1.07, 0.185	0.170
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.096	0.318	-0.720, 0.527	0.764
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.376	0.458	-0.521, 1.27	0.416
	Pseudo R square	0.013
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.6	0.485	13.7, 15.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.572	0.689	-0.779, 1.92	0.408
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.208	0.609	-0.986, 1.40	0.734
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.320	0.877	-2.04, 1.40	0.716
	Pseudo R square	0.005
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.2	0.596	12.0, 14.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.364	0.847	-1.30, 2.02	0.668
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.310	0.649	-0.961, 1.58	0.634
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.007	0.934	-1.82, 1.84	0.994
	Pseudo R square	0.003
mlq	(Intercept)	27.8	0.979	25.9, 29.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.936	1.391	-1.79, 3.66	0.502
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.525	1.116	-1.66, 2.71	0.640
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.280	1.607	-3.43, 2.87	0.862
	Pseudo R square	0.004
empower	(Intercept)	18.8	0.597	17.7, 20.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.10	0.848	-0.565, 2.76	0.198
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.212	0.556	-0.879, 1.30	0.705
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.576	0.802	-2.15, 0.995	0.475
	Pseudo R square	0.012
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.3	0.353	13.6, 15.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.666	0.502	-0.318, 1.65	0.187
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.070	0.463	-0.837, 0.978	0.880
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.235	0.666	-1.07, 1.54	0.725
	Pseudo R square	0.023
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	12.1	0.439	11.3, 13.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.42	0.624	-2.64, -0.195	0.025
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.411	0.452	-1.30, 0.475	0.367
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.366	0.651	-0.910, 1.64	0.576
	Pseudo R square	0.043
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.4	0.501	9.43, 11.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.812	0.712	-2.21, 0.584	0.257
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.046	0.500	-0.934, 1.03	0.927
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.14	0.720	-2.55, 0.275	0.120
	Pseudo R square	0.037
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.2	0.525	9.19, 11.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.14	0.746	-2.60, 0.327	0.131
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.116	0.542	-1.18, 0.947	0.832
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.597	0.781	-2.13, 0.933	0.447
	Pseudo R square	0.035
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.57	0.509	7.57, 9.57
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.05	0.724	-2.47, 0.370	0.150
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.606	0.527	-0.426, 1.64	0.254
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.17	0.759	-2.66, 0.314	0.127
	Pseudo R square	0.044
sss	(Intercept)	29.2	1.413	26.4, 32.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-3.00	2.008	-6.93, 0.939	0.138
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.534	1.321	-2.06, 3.12	0.688
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.89	1.904	-6.62, 0.839	0.134
	Pseudo R square	0.043
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.16 (95% CI [2.84, 3.48], t(147) = 19.39, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.32], t(147) = -0.59, p = 0.554; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.27])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.61], t(147) = 0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.53])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.11], t(147) = 1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.95])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.76 (95% CI [16.99, 18.54], t(147) = 44.88, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.46], t(147) = 0.63, p = 0.528; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.52])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.31, 0.86], t(147) = -0.40, p = 0.690; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.97, 2.15], t(147) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.76])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.73 (95% CI [28.32, 31.13], t(147) = 41.43, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.18, 2.81], t(147) = 0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.55])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.31], t(147) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-1.15, 3.18], t(147) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.62])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.88 (95% CI [11.33, 12.44], t(147) = 41.90, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.09], t(147) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.54])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.23, -0.05], t(147) = -2.13, p = 0.034; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.61, -0.02])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.61], t(147) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.79])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.33 (95% CI [16.46, 18.20], t(147) = 39.00, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.48], t(147) = 0.39, p = 0.696; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.47])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.43, 0.56], t(147) = -0.86, p = 0.390; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.17])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [0.11, 2.97], t(147) = 2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.04, 0.93])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.12 (95% CI [12.33, 13.91], t(147) = 32.48, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.37], t(147) = 0.42, p = 0.673; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.16], t(147) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.40])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.15, 2.17], t(147) = 1.70, p = 0.088; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.74])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.27 (95% CI [9.65, 10.90], t(147) = 32.00, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.53, 0.26], t(147) = -1.39, p = 0.164; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.11])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.14, 0.56], t(147) = -0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.42, 95% CI [0.20, 2.65], t(147) = 2.28, p = 0.023; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [0.09, 1.16])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.22 (95% CI [28.60, 33.84], t(147) = 23.36, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.16, 95% CI [-5.88, 1.57], t(147) = -1.13, p = 0.256; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.16])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-2.53, 1.80], t(147) = -0.33, p = 0.742; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.19])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-3.99, 2.25], t(147) = -0.55, p = 0.583; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.23])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.37 (95% CI [21.08, 23.67], t(147) = 33.87, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.35, 2.33], t(147) = 0.52, p = 0.604; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.13], t(147) = -0.26, p = 0.793; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.79, 1.96], t(147) = 0.09, p = 0.927; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.42])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.92 (95% CI [23.33, 26.51], t(147) = 30.67, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [-0.93, 3.60], t(147) = 1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.62])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.37], t(147) = -1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.06])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53, 95% CI [-0.65, 3.70], t(147) = 1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.64])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.18 (95% CI [17.28, 21.07], t(147) = 19.86, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.80, 95% CI [0.11, 5.49], t(147) = 2.04, p = 0.041; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [0.02, 0.79])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-1.24, 2.98], t(147) = 0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.43])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-3.12, 2.96], t(147) = -0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.42])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.76 (95% CI [9.72, 11.81], t(147) = 20.23, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.69, 2.28], t(147) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.61])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.32], t(147) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.35])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.83, 0.93], t(147) = -0.64, p = 0.521; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.25])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.06 (95% CI [13.49, 16.63], t(147) = 18.78, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-2.29, 2.17], t(147) = -0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.39])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.07, 2.32], t(147) = 0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-2.92, 1.97], t(147) = -0.38, p = 0.702; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.35])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.57 (95% CI [19.76, 23.37], t(147) = 23.41, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.75, 3.38], t(147) = 0.62, p = 0.535; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.52])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-1.11, 2.66], t(147) = 0.81, p = 0.420; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-3.22, 2.21], t(147) = -0.37, p = 0.715; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.34])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.29 (95% CI [15.07, 17.52], t(147) = 26.01, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.74, 2.75], t(147) = 1.13, p = 0.259; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.61])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.53], t(147) = 0.18, p = 0.858; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-0.70, 3.35], t(147) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.75])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.16 (95% CI [12.37, 13.94], t(147) = 32.89, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [-0.05, 2.18], t(147) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.74])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.40], t(147) = -1.12, p = 0.261; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.14])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.96], t(147) = 0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.67])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.67 (95% CI [15.82, 17.51], t(147) = 38.63, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.18], t(147) = 1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.70])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.20], t(147) = 0.49, p = 0.623; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.56], t(147) = 0.26, p = 0.797; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.50])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.96 (95% CI [11.07, 12.85], t(147) = 26.36, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.58, 95% CI [0.32, 2.84], t(147) = 2.45, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.10, 0.87])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.44], t(147) = 1.52, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.48, 0.86], t(147) = -0.52, p = 0.601; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.26])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.63 (95% CI [27.03, 30.22], t(147) = 35.22, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.55, 95% CI [0.29, 4.82], t(147) = 2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [0.05, 0.82])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.33], t(147) = 1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.40])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-2.22, 2.05], t(147) = -0.08, p = 0.936; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.35])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.69 (95% CI [25.13, 30.24], t(147) = 21.23, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.33, 95% CI [-5.96, 1.31], t(147) = -1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.14])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-1.20, 3.40], t(147) = 0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.36])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.94, 95% CI [-6.26, 0.37], t(147) = -1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.04])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.78 (95% CI [12.42, 15.15], t(147) = 19.83, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [-0.48, 3.39], t(147) = 1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.69])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.48], t(147) = 0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.59], t(147) = 0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.52])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.02 (95% CI [14.95, 17.09], t(147) = 29.39, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.52, 2.52], t(147) = 1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.65])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.17], t(147) = 0.24, p = 0.813; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.66, 1.35], t(147) = -0.20, p = 0.838; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.35])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.80 (95% CI [27.49, 32.11], t(147) = 25.30, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.46, 95% CI [-0.83, 5.74], t(147) = 1.47, p = 0.142; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.69])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-1.94, 2.44], t(147) = 0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-2.67, 3.65], t(147) = 0.31, p = 0.760; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.44])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.39) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.88 (95% CI [12.44, 13.32], t(147) = 57.20, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.19], t(147) = -1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.12])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.53], t(147) = -0.30, p = 0.762; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.27], t(147) = 0.82, p = 0.411; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.81])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.00e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.61 (95% CI [13.66, 15.56], t(147) = 30.11, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.92], t(147) = 0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.56])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.40], t(147) = 0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-2.04, 1.40], t(147) = -0.37, p = 0.715; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.41])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.20 (95% CI [12.03, 14.36], t(147) = 22.13, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.02], t(147) = 0.43, p = 0.668; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.48])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.58], t(147) = 0.48, p = 0.633; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 7.17e-03, 95% CI [-1.82, 1.84], t(147) = 7.67e-03, p = 0.994; Std. beta = 1.70e-03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.44])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.80 (95% CI [25.89, 29.72], t(147) = 28.40, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-1.79, 3.66], t(147) = 0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.53])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.66, 2.71], t(147) = 0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-3.43, 2.87], t(147) = -0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.41])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.84 (95% CI [17.67, 20.01], t(147) = 31.59, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.56, 2.76], t(147) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.65])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.30], t(147) = 0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-2.15, 1.00], t(147) = -0.72, p = 0.473; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.23])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.31 (95% CI [13.62, 15.01], t(147) = 40.49, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.65], t(147) = 1.33, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.65])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.98], t(147) = 0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.07, 1.54], t(147) = 0.35, p = 0.724; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.61])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.14 (95% CI [11.28, 13.00], t(147) = 27.66, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.64, -0.19], t(147) = -2.27, p = 0.023; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.82, -0.06])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.30, 0.48], t(147) = -0.91, p = 0.363; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.15])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.64], t(147) = 0.56, p = 0.574; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.51])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.41 (95% CI [9.43, 11.39], t(147) = 20.78, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-2.21, 0.58], t(147) = -1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.16])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.03], t(147) = 0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-2.55, 0.28], t(147) = -1.58, p = 0.115; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.07])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.22 (95% CI [9.19, 11.24], t(147) = 19.46, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-2.60, 0.33], t(147) = -1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.09])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.95], t(147) = -0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-2.13, 0.93], t(147) = -0.76, p = 0.444; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.24])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.57 (95% CI [7.57, 9.57], t(147) = 16.82, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.47, 0.37], t(147) = -1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.10])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.64], t(147) = 1.15, p = 0.250; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.17, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.31], t(147) = -1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.08])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.20 (95% CI [26.43, 31.96], t(147) = 20.67, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.00, 95% CI [-6.93, 0.94], t(147) = -1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.09])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-2.06, 3.12], t(147) = 0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.89, 95% CI [-6.62, 0.84], t(147) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.08])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	483.107	492.198	-238.553	477.107
recovery_stage_a	random	6	483.850	502.033	-235.925	471.850	5.257	3	0.154
recovery_stage_b	null	3	746.911	756.002	-370.455	740.911
recovery_stage_b	random	6	751.216	769.398	-369.608	739.216	1.695	3	0.638
ras_confidence	null	3	912.211	921.303	-453.106	906.211
ras_confidence	random	6	910.691	928.874	-449.346	898.691	7.520	3	0.057
ras_willingness	null	3	626.880	635.971	-310.440	620.880
ras_willingness	random	6	626.530	644.712	-307.265	614.530	6.350	3	0.096
ras_goal	null	3	770.353	779.444	-382.176	764.353
ras_goal	random	6	769.916	788.099	-378.958	757.916	6.436	3	0.092
ras_reliance	null	3	736.030	745.121	-365.015	730.030
ras_reliance	random	6	730.583	748.765	-359.291	718.583	11.447	3	0.010
ras_domination	null	3	685.524	694.615	-339.762	679.524
ras_domination	random	6	684.693	702.876	-336.347	672.693	6.830	3	0.078
symptom	null	3	1,073.717	1,082.809	-533.859	1,067.717
symptom	random	6	1,076.740	1,094.922	-532.370	1,064.740	2.978	3	0.395
slof_work	null	3	874.335	883.426	-434.167	868.335
slof_work	random	6	879.914	898.096	-433.957	867.914	0.421	3	0.936
slof_relationship	null	3	936.813	945.904	-465.407	930.813
slof_relationship	random	6	937.862	956.045	-462.931	925.862	4.951	3	0.175
satisfaction	null	3	1,005.325	1,014.416	-499.663	999.325
satisfaction	random	6	1,005.630	1,023.813	-496.815	993.630	5.695	3	0.127
mhc_emotional	null	3	800.792	809.884	-397.396	794.792
mhc_emotional	random	6	805.348	823.530	-396.674	793.348	1.445	3	0.695
mhc_social	null	3	940.269	949.360	-467.135	934.269
mhc_social	random	6	945.674	963.857	-466.837	933.674	0.595	3	0.898
mhc_psychological	null	3	980.062	989.153	-487.031	974.062
mhc_psychological	random	6	985.033	1,003.215	-486.516	973.033	1.029	3	0.794
resilisnce	null	3	875.978	885.070	-434.989	869.978
resilisnce	random	6	875.505	893.688	-431.753	863.505	6.473	3	0.091
social_provision	null	3	742.211	751.302	-368.105	736.211
social_provision	random	6	741.469	759.652	-364.735	729.469	6.741	3	0.081
els_value_living	null	3	758.338	767.429	-376.169	752.338
els_value_living	random	6	760.266	778.449	-374.133	748.266	4.072	3	0.254
els_life_fulfill	null	3	758.151	767.242	-376.075	752.151
els_life_fulfill	random	6	755.619	773.802	-371.810	743.619	8.531	3	0.036
els	null	3	937.304	946.396	-465.652	931.304
els	random	6	935.999	954.182	-462.000	923.999	7.305	3	0.063
social_connect	null	3	1,077.709	1,086.801	-535.855	1,071.709
social_connect	random	6	1,077.480	1,095.662	-532.740	1,065.480	6.230	3	0.101
shs_agency	null	3	892.385	901.476	-443.192	886.385
shs_agency	random	6	894.205	912.387	-441.102	882.205	4.180	3	0.243
shs_pathway	null	3	814.123	823.214	-404.061	808.123
shs_pathway	random	6	818.394	836.577	-403.197	806.394	1.728	3	0.631
shs	null	3	1,048.576	1,057.667	-521.288	1,042.576
shs	random	6	1,051.517	1,069.699	-519.758	1,039.517	3.059	3	0.383
esteem	null	3	575.576	584.667	-284.788	569.576
esteem	random	6	579.411	597.593	-283.705	567.411	2.165	3	0.539
mlq_search	null	3	799.881	808.973	-396.941	793.881
mlq_search	random	6	805.160	823.342	-396.580	793.160	0.722	3	0.868
mlq_presence	null	3	850.453	859.544	-422.226	844.453
mlq_presence	random	6	855.782	873.965	-421.891	843.782	0.670	3	0.880
mlq	null	3	1,006.438	1,015.530	-500.219	1,000.438
mlq	random	6	1,011.736	1,029.918	-499.868	999.736	0.703	3	0.873
empower	null	3	837.517	846.608	-415.758	831.517
empower	random	6	841.622	859.805	-414.811	829.622	1.895	3	0.594
ismi_resistance	null	3	708.686	717.777	-351.343	702.686
ismi_resistance	random	6	711.697	729.880	-349.849	699.697	2.988	3	0.393
ismi_discrimation	null	3	756.677	765.768	-375.338	750.677
ismi_discrimation	random	6	756.998	775.180	-372.499	744.998	5.679	3	0.128
sss_affective	null	3	795.782	804.874	-394.891	789.782
sss_affective	random	6	794.654	812.836	-391.327	782.654	7.128	3	0.068
sss_behavior	null	3	811.105	820.196	-402.552	805.105
sss_behavior	random	6	812.123	830.306	-400.061	800.123	4.982	3	0.173
sss_cognitive	null	3	803.336	812.427	-398.668	797.336
sss_cognitive	random	6	802.954	821.137	-395.477	790.954	6.381	3	0.094
sss	null	3	1,106.609	1,115.701	-550.305	1,100.609
sss	random	6	1,105.666	1,123.849	-546.833	1,093.666	6.943	3	0.074

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	51	3.16 ± 1.16		50	3.02 ± 1.16		0.555	0.139
recovery_stage_a	2nd	27	3.29 ± 1.15	-0.139	25	3.58 ± 1.15	-0.567	0.375	-0.289
recovery_stage_b	1st	51	17.76 ± 2.83		50	18.12 ± 2.83		0.529	-0.162
recovery_stage_b	2nd	27	17.54 ± 2.74	0.101	25	18.49 ± 2.73	-0.167	0.216	-0.430
ras_confidence	1st	51	29.73 ± 5.12		50	30.54 ± 5.12		0.426	-0.278
ras_confidence	2nd	27	30.53 ± 4.56	-0.275	25	32.36 ± 4.52	-0.622	0.148	-0.625
ras_willingness	1st	51	11.88 ± 2.03		50	12.18 ± 2.03		0.462	-0.258
ras_willingness	2nd	27	11.24 ± 1.80	0.556	25	12.29 ± 1.79	-0.097	0.036	-0.911
ras_goal	1st	51	17.33 ± 3.17		50	17.58 ± 3.17		0.697	-0.127
ras_goal	2nd	27	16.90 ± 2.88	0.223	25	18.69 ± 2.86	-0.569	0.026	-0.919
ras_reliance	1st	51	13.12 ± 2.88		50	13.36 ± 2.88		0.674	-0.155
ras_reliance	2nd	27	13.48 ± 2.53	-0.228	25	14.73 ± 2.51	-0.872	0.075	-0.799
ras_domination	1st	51	10.27 ± 2.29		50	9.64 ± 2.29		0.167	0.371
ras_domination	2nd	27	9.99 ± 2.20	0.168	25	10.77 ± 2.19	-0.662	0.199	-0.460
symptom	1st	51	31.22 ± 9.54		50	29.06 ± 9.54		0.259	0.519
symptom	2nd	27	30.85 ± 7.94	0.087	25	27.82 ± 7.83	0.298	0.168	0.730
slof_work	1st	51	22.37 ± 4.72		50	22.86 ± 4.72		0.605	-0.193
slof_work	2nd	27	22.20 ± 4.13	0.069	25	22.77 ± 4.09	0.034	0.614	-0.227
slof_relationship	1st	51	24.92 ± 5.80		50	26.26 ± 5.80		0.249	-0.458
slof_relationship	2nd	27	23.78 ± 5.00	0.391	25	26.64 ± 4.94	-0.131	0.039	-0.980
satisfaction	1st	51	19.18 ± 6.89		50	21.98 ± 6.89		0.043	-0.677
satisfaction	2nd	27	20.05 ± 6.22	-0.210	25	22.77 ± 6.17	-0.191	0.115	-0.658
mhc_emotional	1st	51	10.76 ± 3.80		50	11.56 ± 3.80		0.295	-0.430
mhc_emotional	2nd	27	11.13 ± 3.24	-0.195	25	11.47 ± 3.21	0.049	0.702	-0.185
mhc_social	1st	51	15.06 ± 5.73		50	15.00 ± 5.73		0.959	0.018
mhc_social	2nd	27	15.68 ± 5.11	-0.188	25	15.15 ± 5.07	-0.044	0.706	0.162
mhc_psychological	1st	51	21.57 ± 6.58		50	22.38 ± 6.58		0.537	-0.221
mhc_psychological	2nd	27	22.34 ± 5.81	-0.211	25	22.65 ± 5.76	-0.073	0.849	-0.083
resilisnce	1st	51	16.29 ± 4.47		50	17.30 ± 4.47		0.261	-0.364
resilisnce	2nd	27	16.42 ± 4.07	-0.046	25	18.75 ± 4.04	-0.526	0.040	-0.844
social_provision	1st	51	13.16 ± 2.86		50	14.22 ± 2.86		0.064	-0.578
social_provision	2nd	27	12.62 ± 2.63	0.291	25	14.31 ± 2.61	-0.046	0.022	-0.915
els_value_living	1st	51	16.67 ± 3.08		50	17.64 ± 3.08		0.115	-0.519
els_value_living	2nd	27	16.91 ± 2.79	-0.128	25	18.06 ± 2.77	-0.224	0.137	-0.615
els_life_fulfill	1st	51	11.96 ± 3.24		50	13.54 ± 3.24		0.016	-1.011
els_life_fulfill	2nd	27	12.59 ± 2.76	-0.403	25	13.86 ± 2.73	-0.204	0.098	-0.812
els	1st	51	28.63 ± 5.80		50	31.18 ± 5.80		0.029	-0.892
els	2nd	27	29.48 ± 4.97	-0.298	25	31.94 ± 4.91	-0.267	0.074	-0.862
social_connect	1st	51	27.69 ± 9.31		50	25.36 ± 9.31		0.212	0.525
social_connect	2nd	27	28.79 ± 7.91	-0.248	25	23.52 ± 7.81	0.416	0.017	1.189
shs_agency	1st	51	13.78 ± 4.97		50	15.24 ± 4.97		0.143	-0.556
shs_agency	2nd	27	13.91 ± 4.32	-0.048	25	16.01 ± 4.28	-0.294	0.081	-0.802
shs_pathway	1st	51	16.02 ± 3.89		50	17.02 ± 3.89		0.199	-0.495
shs_pathway	2nd	27	16.15 ± 3.38	-0.062	25	16.99 ± 3.34	0.016	0.367	-0.417
shs	1st	51	29.80 ± 8.41		50	32.26 ± 8.41		0.145	-0.580
shs	2nd	27	30.06 ± 7.24	-0.060	25	33.00 ± 7.16	-0.176	0.142	-0.696
esteem	1st	51	12.88 ± 1.61		50	12.44 ± 1.61		0.169	0.350
esteem	2nd	27	12.79 ± 1.56	0.076	25	12.72 ± 1.56	-0.221	0.879	0.052
mlq_search	1st	51	14.61 ± 3.46		50	15.18 ± 3.46		0.408	-0.241
mlq_search	2nd	27	14.82 ± 3.24	-0.088	25	15.07 ± 3.23	0.047	0.780	-0.106
mlq_presence	1st	51	13.20 ± 4.26		50	13.56 ± 4.26		0.668	-0.146
mlq_presence	2nd	27	13.51 ± 3.81	-0.125	25	13.88 ± 3.78	-0.128	0.725	-0.149
mlq	1st	51	27.80 ± 6.99		50	28.74 ± 6.99		0.502	-0.218
mlq	2nd	27	28.33 ± 6.35	-0.122	25	28.98 ± 6.30	-0.057	0.709	-0.153
empower	1st	51	18.84 ± 4.26		50	19.94 ± 4.26		0.198	-0.521
empower	2nd	27	19.06 ± 3.65	-0.101	25	19.58 ± 3.61	0.173	0.606	-0.247
ismi_resistance	1st	51	14.31 ± 2.52		50	14.98 ± 2.52		0.187	-0.367
ismi_resistance	2nd	27	14.38 ± 2.40	-0.039	25	15.29 ± 2.39	-0.168	0.176	-0.497
ismi_discrimation	1st	51	12.14 ± 3.13		50	10.72 ± 3.13		0.025	0.822
ismi_discrimation	2nd	27	11.73 ± 2.76	0.238	25	10.68 ± 2.73	0.026	0.170	0.610
sss_affective	1st	51	10.41 ± 3.58		50	9.60 ± 3.58		0.257	0.427
sss_affective	2nd	27	10.46 ± 3.12	-0.024	25	8.51 ± 3.09	0.573	0.025	1.025
sss_behavior	1st	51	10.22 ± 3.75		50	9.08 ± 3.75		0.131	0.549
sss_behavior	2nd	27	10.10 ± 3.30	0.056	25	8.37 ± 3.27	0.345	0.060	0.838
sss_cognitive	1st	51	8.57 ± 3.64		50	7.52 ± 3.64		0.150	0.522
sss_cognitive	2nd	27	9.17 ± 3.21	-0.302	25	6.95 ± 3.18	0.282	0.013	1.106
sss	1st	51	29.20 ± 10.09		50	26.20 ± 10.09		0.138	0.599
sss	2nd	27	29.73 ± 8.65	-0.107	25	23.84 ± 8.55	0.472	0.015	1.177

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(141.47) = -0.59, p = 0.555, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.59 to 0.32)

2st

t(147.83) = 0.89, p = 0.375, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.91)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(135.39) = 0.63, p = 0.529, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.47)

2st

t(147.47) = 1.24, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.56 to 2.44)

ras_confidence

1st

t(117.79) = 0.80, p = 0.426, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.20 to 2.83)

2st

t(148.99) = 1.45, p = 0.148, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.66 to 4.32)

ras_willingness

1st

t(117.73) = 0.74, p = 0.462, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.50 to 1.10)

2st

t(148.99) = 2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.07 to 2.04)

ras_goal

1st

t(120.98) = 0.39, p = 0.697, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.00 to 1.50)

2st

t(148.72) = 2.25, p = 0.026, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (0.22 to 3.36)

ras_reliance

1st

t(115.82) = 0.42, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.38)

2st

t(148.93) = 1.79, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.63)

ras_domination

1st

t(132.58) = -1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.27)

2st

t(147.50) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.99)

symptom

1st

t(109.34) = -1.13, p = 0.259, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-5.92 to 1.61)

2st

t(145.13) = -1.38, p = 0.168, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-7.35 to 1.30)

slof_work

1st

t(115.32) = 0.52, p = 0.605, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.35)

2st

t(148.87) = 0.50, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.68 to 2.83)

slof_relationship

1st

t(113.23) = 1.16, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.95 to 3.63)

2st

t(148.32) = 2.08, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (0.14 to 5.59)

satisfaction

1st

t(119.99) = 2.04, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.09 to 5.52)

2st

t(148.83) = 1.58, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.67 to 6.12)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(112.21) = 1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.29)

2st

t(147.82) = 0.38, p = 0.702, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.11)

mhc_social

1st

t(118.30) = -0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.32 to 2.20)

2st

t(148.97) = -0.38, p = 0.706, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-3.33 to 2.26)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(116.76) = 0.62, p = 0.537, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.78 to 3.40)

2st

t(148.99) = 0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.87 to 3.48)

resilisnce

1st

t(121.33) = 1.13, p = 0.261, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.77)

2st

t(148.67) = 2.07, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (0.11 to 4.55)

social_provision

1st

t(123.47) = 1.87, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.19)

2st

t(148.38) = 2.32, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (0.25 to 3.12)

els_value_living

1st

t(120.66) = 1.59, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.19)

2st

t(148.76) = 1.50, p = 0.137, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.68)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(111.92) = 2.45, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (0.30 to 2.86)

2st

t(147.64) = 1.67, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.77)

els

1st

t(112.56) = 2.21, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (0.26 to 4.84)

2st

t(148.01) = 1.80, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-0.24 to 5.17)

social_connect

1st

t(111.56) = -1.26, p = 0.212, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-6.00 to 1.35)

2st

t(147.39) = -2.42, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 1.19, 95% CI (-9.58 to -0.96)

shs_agency

1st

t(114.74) = 1.47, p = 0.143, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.50 to 3.41)

2st

t(148.77) = 1.76, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.26 to 4.46)

shs_pathway

1st

t(114.22) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.53)

2st

t(148.65) = 0.90, p = 0.367, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-1.00 to 2.69)

shs

1st

t(113.22) = 1.47, p = 0.145, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.86 to 5.77)

2st

t(148.32) = 1.47, p = 0.142, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-1.00 to 6.90)

esteem

1st

t(136.31) = -1.38, p = 0.169, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.19)

2st

t(147.49) = -0.15, p = 0.879, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.79)

mlq_search

1st

t(127.02) = 0.83, p = 0.408, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.94)

2st

t(147.93) = 0.28, p = 0.780, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.03)

mlq_presence

1st

t(118.71) = 0.43, p = 0.668, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.04)

2st

t(148.95) = 0.35, p = 0.725, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.71 to 2.45)

mlq

1st

t(121.09) = 0.67, p = 0.502, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.82 to 3.69)

2st

t(148.70) = 0.37, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.81 to 4.12)

empower

1st

t(112.66) = 1.29, p = 0.198, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.78)

2st

t(148.06) = 0.52, p = 0.606, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.51)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(130.10) = 1.33, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.66)

2st

t(147.64) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.21)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(116.28) = -2.27, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-2.65 to -0.18)

2st

t(148.97) = -1.38, p = 0.170, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.56 to 0.46)

sss_affective

1st

t(115.00) = -1.14, p = 0.257, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.22 to 0.60)

2st

t(148.82) = -2.26, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 1.02, 95% CI (-3.65 to -0.24)

sss_behavior

1st

t(116.36) = -1.52, p = 0.131, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-2.61 to 0.34)

2st

t(148.98) = -1.90, p = 0.060, Cohen d = 0.84, 95% CI (-3.54 to 0.07)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(116.44) = -1.45, p = 0.150, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.48 to 0.39)

2st

t(148.98) = -2.51, p = 0.013, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-3.97 to -0.47)

sss

1st

t(112.75) = -1.49, p = 0.138, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-6.97 to 0.98)

2st

t(148.10) = -2.47, p = 0.015, Cohen d = 1.18, 95% CI (-10.61 to -1.17)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(75.94) = 2.20, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.06)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(70.84) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.52)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(59.79) = 2.28, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.23 to 3.41)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(59.75) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.74)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(61.58) = 2.10, p = 0.079, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.05 to 2.16)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(58.70) = 3.19, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (0.51 to 2.22)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(68.82) = 2.51, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (0.23 to 2.03)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(55.26) = -1.08, p = 0.573, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.54 to 1.07)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(58.43) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.47 to 1.30)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(57.31) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.99)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(61.02) = 0.71, p = 0.967, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.45 to 3.04)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(56.77) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.93)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(60.07) = 0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.95)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(59.22) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.27)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(61.78) = 1.95, p = 0.113, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.04 to 2.95)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(63.03) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.07)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(61.40) = 0.83, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.44)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(56.61) = 0.74, p = 0.923, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.18)

els

1st vs 2st

t(56.95) = 0.97, p = 0.672, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.34)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(56.42) = -1.51, p = 0.273, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-4.29 to 0.60)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(58.12) = 1.07, p = 0.576, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.20)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(57.84) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.08)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(57.31) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.07)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(71.53) = 0.85, p = 0.801, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.38 to 0.94)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(65.18) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.38 to 1.15)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(60.30) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.67)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(61.65) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.08 to 2.57)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(57.00) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.52 to 0.80)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(67.14) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.27)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(58.96) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.90)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(58.26) = -2.09, p = 0.081, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.13 to -0.05)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(59.00) = -1.26, p = 0.423, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.84 to 0.42)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(59.04) = -1.03, p = 0.611, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.66 to 0.53)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(57.05) = -1.72, p = 0.184, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-5.11 to 0.40)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(74.15) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.63)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(69.42) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.89)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(59.16) = 1.05, p = 0.599, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.34)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(59.13) = -2.12, p = 0.077, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.25 to -0.04)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(60.83) = -0.86, p = 0.791, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.45 to 0.58)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(58.15) = 0.87, p = 0.781, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.18)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(67.55) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.16 to 0.58)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(54.93) = -0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.58 to 1.86)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(57.90) = -0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.16)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(56.85) = -1.48, p = 0.290, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.69 to 0.41)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(60.31) = 0.80, p = 0.848, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.29 to 3.04)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(56.34) = 0.74, p = 0.931, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.34)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(59.42) = 0.72, p = 0.953, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.12 to 2.36)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(58.63) = 0.80, p = 0.851, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.16 to 2.70)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(61.02) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.57)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(62.18) = -1.12, p = 0.535, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.49 to 0.42)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(60.66) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.22)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(56.20) = 1.52, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.46)

els

1st vs 2st

t(56.52) = 1.12, p = 0.533, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.37)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(56.02) = 0.93, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.26 to 3.46)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(57.60) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.26 to 1.51)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(57.35) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.20)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(56.85) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.99 to 2.50)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(70.07) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.54)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(64.17) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.43)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(59.63) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.99 to 1.61)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(60.89) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.72 to 2.77)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(56.56) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.33)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(66.00) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.00)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(58.38) = -0.91, p = 0.738, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.32 to 0.50)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(57.74) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.05)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(58.42) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.97)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(58.46) = 1.15, p = 0.513, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.66)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(56.61) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.12 to 3.19)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance